Neuropsychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Treatment Response of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Intellectually Capable Youth and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Joshua R Smith, Maura DiSalvo, Allison Green, Tolga Atilla Ceranoglu, Sheeba Arnold Anteraper, Paul Croarkin, Gagan Joshi","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09564-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-022-09564-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To examine current clinical research on the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pediatric and young adult autism spectrum disorder in intellectually capable persons (IC-ASD). We searched peer-reviewed international literature to identify clinical trials investigating TMS as a treatment for behavioral and cognitive symptoms of IC-ASD. We identified sixteen studies and were able to conduct a meta-analysis on twelve of these studies. Seven were open-label or used neurotypical controls for baseline cognitive data, and nine were controlled trials. In the latter, waitlist control groups were often used over sham TMS. Only one study conducted a randomized, parallel, double-blind, and sham controlled trial. Favorable safety data was reported in low frequency repetitive TMS, high frequency repetitive TMS, and intermittent theta burst studies. Compared to TMS research of other neuropsychiatric conditions, significantly lower total TMS pulses were delivered in treatment and neuronavigation was not regularly utilized. Quantitatively, our multivariate meta-analysis results report improvement in cognitive outcomes (pooled Hedges' g = 0.735, 95% CI = 0.242, 1.228; p = 0.009) and primarily Criterion B symptomology of IC-ASD (pooled Hedges' g = 0.435, 95% CI = 0.359, 0.511; p < 0.001) with low frequency repetitive TMS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis data indicate that TMS may offer a promising and safe treatment option for pediatric and young adult patients with IC-ASD. However, future work should include use of neuronavigation software, theta burst protocols, targeting of various brain regions, and robust study design before clinical recommendations can be made.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"834-855"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10039963/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9890183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interhemispheric Integration after Callosotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Poffenberger and Redundant-Target Paradigms.","authors":"René Westerhausen","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-022-09569-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The central role of the corpus callosum in integrating perception and cognition across the cerebral hemispheres makes it highly desirable for clinical and basic research to have a repertoire of experimental paradigms assessing callosal functioning. Here, the objective was to assess the validity of two such paradigms (Poffenberger, redundant-target paradigms) by conducting single-step meta-analyses on individual case data of callosotomy patients. Studies were identified by systematic literature search (source: Pubmed and WebOfKnowledge, date: 07.03.2022) and all studies were included that reported callosotomy case data for either paradigm. Twenty-two studies (38 unique cases) provided 116 observations of the crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD) for the Poffenberger paradigm, while ten studies (22 cases, 103 observations) provided bilateral redundancy gain (bRG) measures. Using linear-mixed models with \"individual\" and \"experiment\" as random-effects variable, the mean CUD was estimated at 60.6 ms (CI_95%: 45.3; 75.9) for commissurotomy, 43.5 ms (26.7; 60.2) for complete callosotomy, and 8.8 ms (1.1; 16.6) for partial anterior-medial callosotomy patients. The estimates of commissurotomy/callosotomy patients differed significantly from patients with partial callosotomy and healthy controls. The mean bRG_min (minimum unilateral reference) was estimated at 42.8 ms (27.1;58.4) for patients with complete and 30.8 ms (16.8; 44.7) for patients with partial callosotomy, both differing significantly from controls. One limitation was that different formulas for bRG were used, making it necessary to split the sample and reducing test power of some analyses. Nevertheless, the present findings suggest that both paradigms assess interhemispheric callosal integration, confirming their construct validity, but likely test distinct callosal functions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"872-890"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10769931/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10370537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to: Association of Self-Reported Psychological Stress with Cognitive Decline: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Katherine H Franks, Ella Rowsthorn, Lisa Bransby, Yen Ying Lim, Trevor T-J Chong, Matthew P Pase","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09576-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-022-09576-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"871"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10415117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Global Alterations of Whole Brain Structural Connectome in Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-analysis.","authors":"Chao Zuo, Xueling Suo, Huan Lan, Nanfang Pan, Song Wang, Graham J Kemp, Qiyong Gong","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09559-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-022-09559-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent graph-theoretical studies of Parkinson's disease (PD) have examined alterations in the global properties of the brain structural connectome; however, reported alterations are not consistent. The present study aimed to identify the most robust global metric alterations in PD via a meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for all available diffusion MRI structural connectome studies that compared global graph metrics between PD patients and healthy controls (HC). Hedges' g effect sizes were calculated for each study and then pooled using a random-effects model in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, and the effects of potential moderator variables were tested. A total of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria for review. Of these, 16 studies reporting 10 global graph metrics (916 PD patients; 560 HC) were included in the meta-analysis. In the structural connectome of PD patients compared with HC, we found a significant decrease in clustering coefficient (g = -0.357, P = 0.005) and global efficiency (g = -0.359, P < 0.001), and a significant increase in characteristic path length (g = 0.250, P = 0.006). Dopaminergic medication, sex and age of patients were potential moderators of global brain network changes in PD. These findings provide evidence of decreased global segregation and integration of the structural connectome in PD, indicating a shift from a balanced small-world network to 'weaker small-worldization', which may provide useful markers of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying PD.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"783-802"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10770271/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9461211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Questioning What We Thought We Knew: Commentary on Leonhard's Performance Validity Assessment Articles.","authors":"Shane S Bush","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09603-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09603-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neuropsychologists have long understood that valid examinee performance is needed in order to understand the constructs of interest that are at the heart of clinical and forensic evaluations. The assessment of performance validity has evolved over time, from very rudimentary and subjective clinical impressions of examinee task engagement to psychometrically based, multi-method, algorithm-driven, and consensus-informed approaches. Christoph Leonhard has further advanced that evolution in a meaningful way, forcing us to reconsider much of what we thought we knew about the psychometric assessment of performance validity. Although a structured, systematic, and objective approach to validity assessment is necessary, Leonhard has brought to our attention some significant concerns that need to be addressed. This commentary describes professional, ethical, and legal implications of Leonhard's articles. Through an ongoing process of examining, revising, and improving our methods and procedures, we will be better positioned to provide services of value to those we serve. Leonhard has provided an opportunity for us to do just that.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"624-627"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10012749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Review of Statistical and Methodological Issues in the Forensic Prediction of Malingering from Validity Tests: Part II-Methodological Issues.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forensic neuropsychological examinations to detect malingering in patients with neurocognitive, physical, and psychological dysfunction have tremendous social, legal, and economic importance. Thousands of studies have been published to develop and validate methods to forensically detect malingering based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance and symptom validity tests. This is Part II of a two-part review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering based on validity tests. The Part I companion paper explored key statistical issues. Part II examines related methodological issues through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and reanalysis of findings from prior validity test validation studies. Methodological issues examined include the distinction between analog simulation and forensic studies, the effect of excluding too-close-to-call (TCTC) cases from analyses, the distinction between criterion-related and construct validation studies, and the application of the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) in all Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) validation studies published within approximately the first 20 years following its initial publication to assess risk of bias. Findings include that analog studies are commonly confused for forensic validation studies, and that construct validation studies are routinely presented as if they were criterion-reference validation studies. After accounting for the exclusion of TCTC cases, actual classification accuracy was found to be well below claimed levels. QUADAS-2 results revealed that extant TOMM validation studies all had a high risk of bias, with not a single TOMM validation study with low risk of bias. Recommendations include adoption of well-established guidelines from the biomedical diagnostics literature for good quality criterion-referenced validation studies and examination of implications for malingering determination practices. Design of future studies may hinge on the availability of an incontrovertible reference standard of the malingering status of examinees.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"604-623"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Review of Statistical and Methodological Issues in the Forensic Prediction of Malingering from Validity Tests: Part I: Statistical Issues.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09601-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09601-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forensic neuropsychological examinations with determination of malingering have tremendous social, legal, and economic consequences. Thousands of studies have been published aimed at developing and validating methods to diagnose malingering in forensic settings, based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance validity tests. This is the first part of a two-part review. Part I explores three statistical issues related to the validation of validity tests as predictors of malingering, including (a) the need to report a complete set of classification accuracy statistics, (b) how to detect and handle collinearity among validity tests, and (c) how to assess the classification accuracy of algorithms for aggregating information from multiple validity tests. In the Part II companion paper, three closely related research methodological issues will be examined. Statistical issues are explored through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and through reanalysis of findings from prior validation studies. Findings suggest extant neuropsychological validity tests are collinear and contribute redundant information to the prediction of malingering among forensic examinees. Findings further suggest that existing diagnostic algorithms may miss diagnostic accuracy targets under most realistic conditions. The review makes several recommendations to address these concerns, including (a) reporting of full confusion table statistics with 95% confidence intervals in diagnostic trials, (b) the use of logistic regression, and (c) adoption of the consensus model on the \"transparent reporting of multivariate prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis\" (TRIPOD) in the malingering literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"581-603"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10056277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quo Vadis Forensic Neuropsychological Malingering Determinations? Reply to Drs. Bush, Faust, and Jewsbury.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The thoughtful commentaries in this volume of Drs. Bush, Jewsbury, and Faust add to the impact of the two reviews in this volume of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering based on performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). In his commentary, Dr. Bush raises, among others, the important question of whether such malingering determinations can still be considered as meeting the legal Daubert standard which is the basis for neuropsychological expert testimony. Dr. Jewsbury focuses mostly on statistical issues and agrees with two key points of the statistical review: Positive likelihood chaining is not a mathematically tenable method to combine findings of multiple PVTs and SVTs, and the Simple Bayes method is not applicable to malingering determinations. Dr. Faust adds important narrative texture to the implications for forensic neuropsychological practice and points to a need for research into factors other than malingering that may explain PVT and SVT failures. These commentaries put into even sharper focus the serious questions raised in the reviews about the scientific basis of present practices in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"653-657"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Invited Commentary: Bayesian Inference with Multiple Tests.","authors":"Paul A Jewsbury","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dr. Leonhard presents a comprehensive and insightful critique of the existing malingering research literature and its implications for neuropsychological practice. Their statistical critique primarily focuses on the crucial issue of diagnostic inference when multiple tests are involved. While Leonhard effectively addresses certain misunderstandings, there are some overlooked misconceptions within the literature and a few new confusions were introduced. In order to provide a balanced commentary, this evaluation considers both Leonhard's critiques and the malingering research literature. Furthermore, a concise introduction to Bayesian diagnostic inference, utilizing the results of multiple tests, is provided. Misunderstandings regarding Bayesian inference are clarified, and a valid approach to Bayesian inference is elucidated. The assumptions underlying the simple Bayes model are thoroughly discussed, and it is demonstrated that the chained likelihood ratios method is an inappropriate application of this model due to one reason identified by Leonhard and another reason that has not been previously recognized. Leonhard's conclusions regarding the primary dependence of incremental validity on unconditional correlations and the alleged mathematical incorrectness of the simple Bayes model are refuted. Finally, potential directions for future research and practice in this field are explored and discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"643-652"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial.","authors":"Stephen C Bowden,&nbsp;David W Loring","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"579-580"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}